The 2nd Amendment

[Dolorous Jason]

 "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed "

And in the end, it is not firearms that maintain the right of the governed to withhold their consent, but their courage and willingness to use them when necessity dictates. Still, history teaches us that such courage and sense of duty are nearly futile without the firearms to support them. As clearly stated, maintaining the ability to overthrow your government is not the right of a free populace, but their duty.

Amen , brotha

[CBWx2]

I can directly quote the US Constitution to support my assertion that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide for a means of addressing national security. Can you directly quote the US Constitution to support your assertion that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow a citizenry to have recourse against an oppressive government?

From the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


Hmmmm....whatever could that mean ....

You are ignoring one minor detail. The 2nd amendment isn't in the Declaration of Independence. It's in the US Constitution. I wonder why those allegedly so passionate about rebellion would opt not to expressly include the right to rebel into the US Constitution, especially since that's what the alleged purpose of the 2nd amendment actually was? Seems like they would have been just as clear about that as they were about the national security thing. Odd...

[Chief Joseph]

 Now when you say "ignoring one minor detail," did you perhaps mean 'stating it quite clearly in the very first sentence"?

[Durango 95]

Oh, BTW Durango, I am not ignoring your challenge to present you with a comprehensive gun control plan. What I find interesting about the challenge, however, is that you are calling for first Vince, and now myself to present you with a comprehensive solution to support our stance when you haven't even attempted to present one for your own stance. The furthest you've gotten was "look into causation", which is not a comprehensive plan. It barely even qualifies as a position. In fact, one might accurately describe it as nothing more than a talking point.

When I have more time, I will not only present you with what I would consider a solution to ending, or at least sharply decreasing gun violence, and do you one better. I will also address your position of looking into causation. You know, the position that you have taken a vague and non-committal stance on while simultaneously attacking others for doing the same in your opinion?

Oh Lord. Just put something on the table.

This silly act is wearing thin. I'm 90% certain you have the mind of a child, prove me wrong and dazzle me w/ your brilliance.

[Durango 95]

Come on CBW what's the matter did I say something that hit too close to home? You don't like it when someone points out that you have more blood on your hands than Adam Lanza and James Holmes combined.  What were you saying about causation?

So do you. I'd gladly put up for comparison the number of people killed by drone attacks against the number of people killed by firearms in our country alone since 2008.

I've never voted for Obama nor do I support murder......But you on the other hand....most certainly do.

That is fact you can't run from.

You may have never voted for Obama, but you absolutely support murder. At least, by your assertion of indirect culpability, you do. You see, it is your position that allows for individuals like James Holmes and Adam Lanza to be able to acquire the firearms that they use to commit their acts. It is your position that allows for 80% of all the handguns used in violent crimes to end up in the hands of the perpetrators. So you have far more blood on your hands than I do, and that is a fact that you can't run from.

I'm sure you would like to believe that and I see you have already rationalized in your own mind as you attempt to rinse your hands clean of the killing that has already taken place by direct support of the policies that are killing untold amounts of innocents.

You supported those policies not just once but twice knowing full well your candidate had lied to you and the rest of the world about ending it. He didn't, but you didn't care. You have been fully indocrinated into a corrupt duoply where anything in the party name can be justified as long as it's your team that wins in the end. Despite the untold casualties you knowingly and fully endorsed.

So when I see your protestations about the killing of innocents it leaves me less than impressed. If it makes you feel good to point the dirty end of the stick at me because you somehow think that me supporting the rights of gun ownership is akin to murder , then knock yourself out. But be sure to know one thing the only person you are fooling is yourself.

[Biggs3535]

 Now when you say "ignoring one minor detail," did you perhaps mean 'stating it quite clearly in the very first sentence"?

LMFAO

And when did the word rebellion have to be spelled out in the second amendment?  The Supreme Court didn't seem to have a huge problem understanding it's intentions.

[Durango 95]

 Now when you say "ignoring one minor detail," did you perhaps mean 'stating it quite clearly in the very first sentence"?

LMFAO

I had the same reaction. His whole double talking bullspit fest is finally circling the drain.

[Durango 95]

Come on Sally where's that freakin' manifesto on gun control?

We are all waiting!

[spartan]

It does rather sound like CBW is arguing the Founding Fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence, risked execution as a traitor, fought and won an 8 year war then said  "crap - that wasn't right", and changed their minds. Interesting.

[spartan]

Come on Sally where's that freakin' manifesto on gun control?

We are all waiting!

Without going through every single page, I believe he stated in the other thread that he wanted all semi-automatic weapons and "high capacity" magazines banned.

[Durango 95]

Come on Sally where's that freakin' manifesto on gun control?

We are all waiting!

Without going through every single page, I believe he stated in the other thread that he wanted all semi-automatic weapons and "high capacity" magazines banned.

Yes, but that was last week.

Staying true to form he'll deliver a completely new and fully revised edition when it finally gets here.

[Chief Joseph]

 " The Supreme Court didn't seem to have a huge problem understanding it's intentions. "

2008 Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller:
  'The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,'

[CBWx2]

 Now when you say "ignoring one minor detail," did you perhaps mean 'stating it quite clearly in the very first sentence"?

He stated quite clearly in the first sentence that the 2nd amendment wasn't part of the Declaration of Independence? Must have missed it. I'll double back and check.

[CBWx2]

Come on CBW what's the matter did I say something that hit too close to home? You don't like it when someone points out that you have more blood on your hands than Adam Lanza and James Holmes combined.  What were you saying about causation?

So do you. I'd gladly put up for comparison the number of people killed by drone attacks against the number of people killed by firearms in our country alone since 2008.

I've never voted for Obama nor do I support murder......But you on the other hand....most certainly do.

That is fact you can't run from.

You may have never voted for Obama, but you absolutely support murder. At least, by your assertion of indirect culpability, you do. You see, it is your position that allows for individuals like James Holmes and Adam Lanza to be able to acquire the firearms that they use to commit their acts. It is your position that allows for 80% of all the handguns used in violent crimes to end up in the hands of the perpetrators. So you have far more blood on your hands than I do, and that is a fact that you can't run from.

I'm sure you would like to believe that and I see you have already rationalized in your own mind as you attempt to rinse your hands clean of the killing that has already taken place by direct support of the policies that are killing untold amounts of innocents.

You supported those policies not just once but twice knowing full well your candidate had lied to you and the rest of the world about ending it. He didn't, but you didn't care. You have been fully indocrinated into a corrupt duoply where anything in the party name can be justified as long as it's your team that wins in the end. Despite the untold casualties you knowingly and fully endorsed.

So when I see your protestations about the killing of innocents it leaves me less than impressed. If it makes you feel good to point the dirty end of the stick at me because you somehow think that me supporting the rights of gun ownership is akin to murder , then knock yourself out. But be sure to know one thing the only person you are fooling is yourself.

While many in the UK criticize this country's gun laws they themselves live in fear of robbery assault and theft. All of which are at nearly pandemic proportions because the criminals have no fear of being shot in self defense.

Just look at those poor Brits getting raped and assaulted in epidemic proportions! If only they had more guns there!

England has had strict regulations placed on firearms since the beginning of the 20th century, yet only in recent years has the crime rate reached higher proportions there than in the US. Now, logic would suggest that this means the rise in crime there would appear to be in no way related to stricter gun laws, or the lack thereof. Especially since gun laws in the US have gotten tighter in recent years than in past years, yet the crime rate here has been declining.

So what does the broader, unbiased look into the "causation" of why this recent phenomenon is occurring tell us? Penalties for crime in England have gotten more lax in recent years due to a political movement to reduce the nation's prison population, a move adopted by the Tory's to lessen the fiscal burden of housing criminals for long periods of time.

Less people are getting locked up, and when they do, it's for less time than in previous years. The result has been more criminals on the streets, thus more crimes being committed than in past years. You can draw a direct correlation between the reduction in penalties for violent offenses and the rise in the UK crime rate, a correlation that is completely non-existent with stricter gun regulations being placed on the populace.

I guess "causation" is only worthy of being looked into by Durango when it suits his agenda. Morality, meet moral dissonance.

What the broader picture also tells us, is that even though you are less likely to be a victim of certain other crimes in the US than you are in the UK (and that's only as of the last few years, not a long standing phenomenon), you are 6 times more likely to be murdered in the US than you are in the UK. Other violent crimes are higher in the UK, yet the murder rate is still far, far lower. What is the "causation", one might ask?

70% of murders in the US are committed with handguns vs. 7% of murders in the UK. Despite the mantra that if someone wants to kill you, there are other ways to do it than with guns, it appears that when guns are not readily available to criminals, they typically murder less people. The examples that refute this assertion, although quick to be clung to and paraded out by gun advocates, are few. When comparing societies with a similar demographic makeup, the ones that have a higher proportion of guns in circulation also have exponentially higher murder rates than the ones that don't.

I supported Obama, not because I agree with everything he's done or will do, but because I believe his policies would be less destructive than that of the person he was running against. The vast majority of voters cast their ballots for the exact same reason. Supporting Obama is not an endorsement of drone attacks no more than voting for Bill Clinton was an endorsement of adultery.

You, on the other hand, support part and parcel, the gun epidemic that exists in this society despite the destructiveness that it has lead to. Not only do you support it, but you viciously attack the motivations of those who do not. You have turned a blind eye to the consequences of this position. You dishonestly claim to be open to a common sense solution, yet as the death toll rises, you instead urge others to look only at the part of the issue that preserves your position. You are not part of the solution, you are not even part of the problem. You are the problem. If I have any blood on my hands for casting my vote, then you sir, are bathing in it.

[olafberserker]

14 pages of cbw talking in circles?   shocking.   it is a little humorous watching durango deal with what some of us have had to deal with it on numerous occasions with the guy ......